We tend to think of a 90% or higher live release rate for a shelter as indicating that the shelter is doing its job successfully. That’s not always the case. Here is a look at two open-intake municipal shelters that, although they have similar live release rates, are very different in performance. The first shelter has a 92% save rate so far in 2014. Out of its total live releases this year it has adopted out 25%, returned 16% to owners, and transferred 59% to rescues. The second shelter had a 91% live release rate for 2013. It adopted out 67% of its live releases, returned 16% to owners, and transferred 17%. The thing that really leaps out at you from those numbers is that the first shelter relied heavily on transfers to achieve its high live release rate (59% of total live releases) and adopted out only 25%. Those percentages were very different with the second shelter, which relied heavily on adoption (adoptions were 67% of its live releases) and transferred only 17%. The first shelter is essentially being propped up by rescues in the community. There is nothing at all wrong with a shelter looking to the community for support, and in fact the most successful communities I see are ones where there is lots of community support. But the shelter must do its share. It is possible for a community to carry a bad shelter to a 90% or higher live release rate, but it is a monumental struggle, it takes a lot longer than it needs to, and it is less sustainable. When a community has to carry the shelter on its back, you wind up with a lot of exhausted and angry rescuers. When you look at social media for the rescuers in the first community you see a constant stream of statements such as: “Mary found this dog but cannot keep it and does not want to take it to the shelter! Please help!,” or “This cat is on the shelter kill list for tomorrow! Needs a rescue commitment,” or “This puppy has a skin condition which means the shelter might kill it – she needs a foster!” With the second shelter things are very different. Rescuers are not overworked and are not being asked to do the shelter’s job for it. The second shelter is in a high-intake area and it struggles, but when it calls for help the community knows the need is real, and the community is able to respond because they are not already stretched to the breaking point. Most of all, with the second shelter the rescuers in the community look at it as a partner and friend, not an enemy. So does this mean we cannot trust shelter statistics to tell us whether a shelter is doing a good job? Not at all – but we have to look at statistics in the context of the community. If we see a high transfer rate for a particular shelter, is that because it has an established partnership with a high-volume adoption partner (a good thing)? Or is it because the shelter is simply not making an effort at adoptions and is putting the responsibility off on local rescues? A good live release rate is the threshold requirement that a shelter should meet, but how it got to the high live release rate is the next question. By the way, I’m not at all opposed to transports, where a shelter in an area with little demand for shelter animals sends dogs to an area with higher demand. I think transports are great because there are now areas of the country that have a shortage of dogs. But there is a difference between moving animals around the country to equalize supply and demand, and the shelter making local rescuers do its job for it.

Routt County is located in northwest Colorado, bordering Wyoming. The population recorded in the 2010 census was 23,500. The county seat is the city of Steamboat Springs, which has 12,000 people. Steamboat Springs has a city-run animal control and shelter called the Steamboat Springs Animal Shelter (SSAS). SSAS serves the entire county, including all the incorporated and unincorporated towns. I was told in a telephone call to SSAS that Routt County has its own animal control officers but contracts with Steamboat Springs for strays to be taken in by SSAS. The shelter official told me that SSAS takes in owner surrenders for the city and the county. Once in a while the shelter gets full, and when that happens they ask owners who want to surrender animals if they can wait. If the owner cannot wait, SSAS takes the animal immediately. The shelter gets support and volunteer help from the Routt County Humane Society (RCHS). A newsletter that is no longer available online described how RCHS volunteers staff the shelter to extend the hours that it is open to the public, and raise funds for spaying and neutering and medical care for shelter animals. RCHS covers the veterinary care and the spay-neuter expenses of 90% of the animals that SSAS takes in. As an example of an animal that would not have survived without medical care provided by RCHS, the newsletter describes the case of a 4-week-old puppy who stopped nursing and required several days of intensive care before he recovered. RCHS also provides assistance for low-income families to spay and neuter their pets. The most recent RCHS newsletter reports that 90% of stray dogs and 10% of stray cats impounded by SSAS are returned to their owners. Although the return-to-owner rate for cats may not sound too good, it’s about 5 times higher than I usually see. Dogs with extraordinary expenses that were saved recently by RCHS included a dog that was so malnourished that both its front legs broke not long after impoundment, and a dachshund that had to have all her teeth extracted. Both are now doing well. The Colorado Department of Agriculture collects information on the statistics of animal shelters in the state. The 2012 report submitted by SSAS shows a total intake of 625 animals. Intake per 1000 people was 27. The live release rate was 98%. One animal died in shelter care, but if that is counted in with euthanasias it does not change the live release rate. The Colorado reporting form does not separate out owner-requested euthanasia. In 2013, SSAS total intake was 635 animals, with a live release rate of 99.3%. If the two animals who died in shelter care are counted in with euthanasias, the live release rate was 99.0%. Routt County was originally listed by this blog on October 24, 2013, based on its 2012 statistics. This post is a revision and update with 2013 statistics.

Alachua County is located in north central Florida. The county contains the city of Gainesville, which has a population of about 124,000, and several small towns, including High Springs, Newberry, and the town of Alachua. The combined population of the city and county is about 247,000. Animal control, stray intake, and intake of owner surrenders is performed for the county by a municipal agency, Alachua County Animal Services. I verified in a phonecall to the shelter that it serves the entire population of Alachua County, including Gainesville and the towns in the county. I was told that the shelter accepts owner surrenders from county residents with no conditions, except for a small fee for unlicensed and unvaccinated animals. The shelter works with a coalition of five local non-profits — the Alachua County Humane Society (a member of the Million Cat Challenge), Helping Hands Pet Rescue, Gainesville Pet Rescue, Puppy Hill Farm, and Haile’s Angels Pet Rescue. Another important non-profit in Alachua County is No More Homeless Pets, which has a low-income spay-neuter program called Operation Petsnip. The University of Florida College of Veterinary Medicine has a program, Operation Catnip, that does TNR for feral and unowned cats. Veterinarians at the Maddie’s Fund Shelter Medicine program, including Dr. Julie Levy, have been working with Alachua County shelters for years. Last but not least, the Wagmore Foundation has provided assistance. The shelter and its rescue partners have reported to the media that they achieved an 86% live release rate for 2014. (The media report did not contain full statistics.) Over 850 dogs and cats were adopted in a 2-day Maddie’s Fund adoption event in 2014, and almost 1500 were adopted out during the 3-month ASPCA Rachel Ray Challenge. Operation Petsnip sterilized over 4000 dogs and cats and Operation Catnip sterilized more than 2100 cats. The shelter is going to try for 90% in 2015. It is planning to hire a pet-retention specialist, and is mulling over some admission changes. Maddie’s Fund sponsored a project in Alachua County from 2002 to 2009 to help the coalition bring up the county’s live release rate, which was only 29% in the year 2000. The Maddie’s Fund project formally ended in 2009, but the coalition members continued to work together and the project collected statistics through mid-2013. The most recent full statistics posted by Maddie’s Fund for the coalition were for calendar year 2011, where the live release rate was approximately 70% with an intake of about 9600 animals. Alachua County, FL, is counted in the Running Totals as an 80%+ community.

I’m working on a post about how communities get to No Kill. I went into the research for this post thinking that there were 4 main ways to get to No Kill — (1) a volunteer group or non-profit works with the existing city or county shelter to increase live releases, (2) a non-profit takes over the city or county shelter by contract with the purpose of increasing live release rates, (3) shelter management or city or county officials decide on their own or as a result of education by local advocates to take steps to reduce killing, or (4) grassroots political action creates enough votes or negative publicity to either force unwilling city or county officials to reform their shelter or elect new officials who are willing to reform the shelter. What I’ve found so far is that lots of the communities I’ve listed got to No Kill by one of the first three methods, but as to the 4th method I’m aware of only one community – Austin – that could be classified as having gotten to No Kill by a political fight. And Austin had one of the best non-profits in the nation, Austin Pets Alive, helping the shelter, so it does not appear to be a case of pure political action making the difference. You might be wondering why I don’t simply call up all the shelters I have listed where I don’t know the “backstory” and ask them how No Kill was accomplished in their community. The reason is that I have well over 100 shelters on my list and, with a surprising number of them, their 90%+ live release rates go way back. For example, in Colorado in 2000 there were 9 municipal shelters that reported a live release rate of 90% or more, and there were a couple dozen more in the United States by 2005. Cold calling all those shelters and trying to find people who could accurately tell me what was going on 10 or 15 years ago would be a challenge. Not to mention that in the case of a political fight, people at the shelter might not be anxious to talk about it. But my readers have a lot of collective knowledge and I’m hoping you can furnish me with some leads. So, readers, help me out here. I would like to identify more communities where local activists fought and won a political battle for No Kill that resulted in No Kill happening. I’m looking for cities or counties where officials were not interested in No Kill and rebuffed attempts to educate them, and local activists forced the officials to change their tune and successfully implement No Kill. Even if a political fight was only part of the solution (as in Austin) I’d still like to hear about it. Any suggestions?

There’s so much news these days about 90%+ and Worth Watching communities and shelters that I can’t even stay close to keeping up with it by blog posts. So – I’ve added a new feature to the blog, the News Bit page. There will be a News Bit each day, and to make it even easier to find, I’ll put a link to it in a heading in each post. The running total in the blog’s subtitle has been expanded and moved to the News Bit page. In addition to the total of communities reporting 90% plus, I’ve added a total of the human population in those communities. Enjoy!

The Williamson County Regional Animal Shelter (WCRAS), located in Texas just north of Austin, provides animal sheltering services for Williamson County (population 423,000) and all of the communities within the county except for Georgetown and Taylor. WCRAS has contracts with four of the communities: Round Rock (population 100,000), Cedar Park (population 54,000), Leander, (population 27,000), and Hutto (population 15,000). In addition to taking in strays picked up by animal control, the shelter accepts owner surrenders by appointment, with a small fee. WCRAS provides links on its home page for its reports going back to 2008. WCRAS annual reports are some of the best I’ve seen. They clearly state what type of shelter WCRAS is and what it does, and the communities it serves. They go into detail about animal statistics, including statistics that are not usually reported such as length of stay. They have graphs comparing statistical categories going back several years, so you can see how the shelter has been doing over time. The reports also have lots of information about shelter finances. WCRAS, like many No Kill organizations, has been struggling with an outdated shelter building. The county took steps in fiscal year 2013-2014 to determine the feasibility of remodeling and expanding the shelter. For fiscal year 2013-2014, intake of all animals including wildlife was 6694. Dog and cat intake was 6478. The live release rate was 96% for dogs and cats. The modified live release rate, including animals who died or were lost in shelter care, was 93%. WCRAS did not report any owner-requested euthanasias. Foster care numbers were very high, with 1836 animals going into foster care during the fiscal year. Average length of stay at the shelter was 11.6 days for dogs and 14.6 days for cats. The shelter’s yearly intake since 2007-2008 has ranged from a low of 6003 to a high of 7763. The shelter takes in about 19 animals per 1000 people per year. Donations to the shelter have gone up from $17,980.67 in 2007-2008 to $135,204.18 in 2013-2014. The live release rates for cats and dogs separately both went over 90% in fiscal year 2011-2012 and have remained there ever since. The modified live release rate for dogs has also been over 90% since 2011-2012. Fiscal year 2013-2014 was the first year that the modified live release rate for cats went over 90%. Williamson County, Texas, was originally listed by this blog on April 15, 2013, based on its 2011-2012 statistics. This post is a revision and update with 2013-2014 statistics.

In the great majority of cities and counties in the United States stray dogs are not a major problem. In the last 40 years there have been big changes in how dogs are treated, and today most people get their dogs spayed or neutered and would never think of letting them roam the neighborhood by themselves. In most places today, when a dog is out by itself it is usually lost or has escaped from its yard. It is less often a situation where the dog is truly homeless or where its owners are deliberately allowing it to roam. But there are a few places in the United States where stray dogs are apparently still a problem. I have heard repeatedly and from credible sources that there is a stray dog problem in Dallas, San Antonio, Houston, and parts of the desert southwest, as well as on a few Native American reservations. In those places there are reportedly large numbers of free-roaming dogs. Some of them are probably truly homeless; others may have homes but they are only loosely attached to those homes and they spend most of their time roaming. You may have noticed that I said “apparently” and “reportedly.” I can’t be any more definite about the existence and extent of the stray dog problem because, as far as I can tell, no one has ever made a count of the free-roaming dog population in any of those places. We have to rely on anecdotal evidence and imprecise methods such as trying to estimate the number of free-roaming dogs from the number of dead dogs picked up by animal control or sanitation departments. Nevertheless, the anecdotal evidence indicates that the problem itself is real, even if we don’t know the extent of the problem. In Dallas people have complained for years about stray dogs in the southern neighborhoods of the city. In the past year, reporting on the stray dog issue has increased. The gist of the media stories is that people who live in the affected neighborhoods in the southern part of the city are fed up with Dallas animal control for what they see as failing to do its job, and they want the stray dog problem solved. People who live in the affected neighborhoods describe themselves as being intimidated by packs of dogs, and there have been reports of bites by strays. The City Council appears to have been listening, as it had a meeting September 2nd where it heard complaints about the issue and tasked a committee with finding answers. On September 14th, the City Manager, the Assistant City Manager, and the director of Dallas Animal Services (DAS), Jody Jones, filed a report with the committee. Jones has been trying to deal with the situation by having employees go to neighborhoods where the problem is the worst and counsel residents about keeping their dogs under control and getting them sterilized. Increasingly, the city government is becoming impatient with DAS for what it sees as a failure to deal with the stray dog problem. This story quotes one council member as calling Jone’s program “fluff and talk.” Another story quotes a council member as suggesting that feral dogs should be shot from helicopters (yes, really). And this story describes the increased pressure on the shelter to act on the problem. One of the people who has been writing about the issue and urging action recently said that if the shelter does what the city is demanding and starts impounding the strays en masse, a lot of dogs are going to be killed by the shelter. I suspect that some No Kill advocates will say that the shelter director should pick up all the strays and find new homes for them. It seems unlikely that the shelter director would be able to do that. In the first place, Dallas is notorious in the animal-shelter world for failing to adequately fund its shelter. The city has increased its funding for the shelter in recent years, but shelter officials report that they have a hard time keeping animal control officers because of low pay and high stress. In the second place, even the best No Kill shelters in the United States would have a very difficult time withstanding an onslaught of truly homeless dogs, with their problems such as heartworm infection, lack of socialization, behavior issues, need for sterilization, etc. We do not know the extent of the stray dog problem in Dallas, but if the reports are anywhere close to accurate, a thorough sweep could temporarily double the shelter’s intake – or more. And if the problem is not solved at the street level, then the increase in shelter killing will not be temporary. A frequent reaction by No Kill advocates when a city is in trouble like Dallas is to ask for a change in shelter leadership. Perhaps another director could do better, although it seems likely that any director, no matter how talented, would struggle with the situation in Dallas today. When Katrina happened, animal welfare organizations all over the United States rallied to save animals who otherwise would have died. Katrina changed how disaster-relief services look at pets, with the result that the response for pets in the recent flooding in South Carolina will be very different from what it would have been 10 years ago. The stray problem in certain places across south-central and southwestern states is not the result of a natural disaster, but it is similar in that officials in some of the affected cities do not have the capability to deal with the issue in a humane way. It certainly looks as though stray dogs in Dallas are about to face their own Katrina. But the situation is not hopeless. The animal-welfare community in the United States proved during the Katrina disaster that it was capable of mobilizing quickly and providing targeted help that saved thousands of pets. There is no reason that a similar effort couldn’t save the stray dogs of Dallas. We are watching a possible slow-motion disaster getting ready to unfold in Dallas as the city moves to force DAS to start mass street-sweeps and killing. The animal-welfare community has the proven capacity to ward off that catastrophe. Some of the programs that large national organizations and charities could implement in Dallas include: (1) holding areas where rounded-up stray dogs could be temporarily housed and evaluated, (2) transport (after the expiration of the stray-hold period) of dogs who are healthy and socialized to other cities for adoption, (3) treatment in situ or transport to treatment facilities for dogs who need more help, and (4) intensive neighborhood programs along the lines of HSUS’s Pets For Life to help keep the problem from recurring. If an intervention like this could be done, the first three programs would probably be needed for only about 3 months – maybe even less if it turns out that the problem is not as bad as it sounds. The 4th program would need to be done on an ongoing basis. The alternative is to continue to allow Jody Jones and DAS to struggle on in isolation with a problem that they very likely cannot solve on their own. No Kill is often criticized as unrealistic. We’ve all heard variations on the theme of “my city can’t go No Kill because we have too many homeless animals” or “not enough money” or “pet owners who are irresponsible and just don’t care.” Sometimes those complaints have a grain or more of truth. But No Kill is strong enough now as a proven national force to start reaching out to places like Dallas that have real problems, and help them set things right. Once that is done, hopefully those places will be able to continue on their own. We have the power to stave off the impending tragedy in Dallas – it’s just a question of whether we have the will.

King County, Washington, has a population of almost 2 million people, and its county seat is Seattle. Many of the people in the county live in the suburbs of Seattle. In 2008, the county reported a live release rate of 77%, substantially better than in previous years. A consultant submitted a scathing report on the shelter, however, which at that time was known as King County Animal Care & Control. The consultant concluded that, among other things, animals were often left without food and water for substantial periods of time. The county council then decided to make changes. In July of 2010, the county implemented a regional plan for animal control, breaking the county up into four regions which each had their own animal control staff. Animal sheltering was consolidated at the county shelter in Kent, Washington. A new manager was appointed. The new entity was know as Regional Animal Services of King County (RASKC). RASKC accepts owner surrenders on a space available basis. RASKC serves the unincoporated area of King County and 25 cities and towns. For 2011 and 2012, RASKC reported a live release rate around 85%. A complicating factor in evaluating the live release rate for King County is that the Humane Society for Seattle/King County (HSSKC), a private organization, accepts owner surrenders (by appointment). HSSKC and the Seattle Animal Shelter report to Maddie’s Fund as a coalition, and their most recent available online report (2010) shows a 91% live release rate for the coalition as a whole, with HSSKC at 94% and the Seattle shelter at 85%. HSSKC separately reported a 96% live release rate for 2011. For the calendar year 2013, RASKC reported an 89% live release rate for cats and dogs. If owner-requested euthanasia and animals who died or were lost in shelter care are included with euthanasias, the live release rate was 86%. The shelter also euthanized some livestock, wildlife, and small animals, including bats for rabies testing. If all these euthanasias are counted with cats and dogs, the live release rate was 83%. In 2014, the live release rate declined to 86%, or 84% if animals who died or were lost in shelter care are counted with euthanasias. The live release rate might well be over 90% if the owner surrenders from King County that go to HSSKC were counted in RASKC statistics. HSSKC’s yearly intake is around 6,000, so it is a major player in the area. Since HSSKC serves both the city and the county, it would be helpful to have a consolidated report for all three entities that accounted for transfers among the three entities. At any rate, the Seattle metropolitan area appears to be one of the safest large metros in the nation for animals. King County is counted in the Running Totals as an 80% to 90% community.

Augusta County, Virginia, is located in the Shenandoah Valley area west of Charlottesville. Its population was 74,000 in the 2010 census. The county contains two independent cities: Staunton (population 24,000) and Waynesboro (population 21,000). The total population of the county and the two cities is 119,000. In 2011, the Shenandoah Valley Animal Services Center (SVASC) took over animal sheltering for Augusta County, Staunton, and Waynesboro. The shelter took in 2447 animals in 2013, the most recent year for which full statistics are currently available. Animal control officers for Augusta County, Staunton, and Waynesboro immediately return or euthanize a few of the animals they pick up, but the great majority go to SVASC. The Augusta Regional SPCA, located in Staunton, also takes in animals – 1337 in 2013, including 464 owner surrenders and 240 transfers.  There are several rescues in the county, including Augusta Dog Adoption, Cat’s Cradle, and the Mosby Foundation, that take animals from SVASC. SVASC’s full statistics for 2014 are not yet available online from the state system, but the shelter recently reported to the media that its live release rate increased to 94% in 2014 from 82% in 2013. Augusta County is one of the places where it is very difficult to calculate a live release rate even with the state reports, due to multiple intake shelters and transfers among shelters. SVASC’s current shelter is inadequate, and the three jurisdictions it serves have committed $420,000 to expand the shelter this spring. The expansion will add cage space, six isolation rooms, and separate areas to house puppies and small dogs. Augusta County, Staunton, and Waynesboro are counted in the Running Totals as 90%+ communities.

Brown County is located in eastern Wisconsin, bordering the Green Bay area of Lake Michigan. Its population is 248,000 people. Its county seat is the city of Green Bay, which has a population of 104,000. The Bay Area Humane Society (BAHS) is a private non-profit that provides animal sheltering for the county and all of its cities and towns, except for the city of Green Bay. BAHS accepts owner surrenders subject to a waiting list when they are full. BAHS used to provide animal sheltering for the city of Green Bay. In June of 2013, though, Green Bay officials began sending animals picked up by animal control within the city limits to a veterinarian’s office for the stray hold period. Recently the city has been considering moving animal control and sheltering back to BAHS. BAHS reports its statistics in the Asilomar Accords format. In 2014 the shelter took in 3780 cats and dogs and had a 94% live release rate. If owner-requested euthanasias and animals who died in shelter care are counted as euthanasias, the live release rate was 91%. Owner-requested euthanasias dropped considerably in 2014 from previous years. In 2013, BAHS intake not counting owner-requested euthanasias was 4640 and the live release rate was 88%. In 2012, the shelter took in 5043 cats and dogs (not counting owner-requested euthanasias), and the live release rate was 85%. Brown County is counted in the Running Totals as a 90%+ community.

San Antonio is a fast-growing city in south-central Texas with a population of 1.3 million people.  It is the county seat of Bexar County. Greater San Antonio has a population of over 2.2 million people. In 2006, San Antonio Animal Care Services (ACS) had a live release rate of only 10%. At that time, the shelter put forth a strategic plan to achieve live release of all adoptable animals by 2012. The shelter failed to reach the goal, however, and in September of 2011 it put forth a new strategic plan in which it acknowledged that its live release rate was only 31%. The 2011 strategic plan identified three elements as “critical” to achieving a high live release rate: (1) a strong licensing program, (2) spay/neuter partnerships, and (3) high-volume rescue partnerships. The report noted that San Antonio “has existing strong spay/neuter partnerships, and has simplified the licensing program within the past year.” As to the third element, the report stated that the city “is challenging the animal welfare community to take on an additional 6,000 animals annually from ACS shelters.” There have been many changes since the 2011 plan was released. Early in 2012, the city announced that Austin Pets Alive!, which had been helping ACS, was ready to partner with the city of San Antonio through a new organization, San Antonio Pets Alive!. The San Antonio Humane Society took in over 2000 pets from ACS in 2012, as well as accepting animals directly from the public. Late in 2012, ACS welcomed a new director, Kathy Davis. The city announced an agreement with another non-profit, the Animal Defense League of Texas, which manages a 2.2 million dollar shelter built by the city. In 2013, San Antonio gave up handling animal control and sheltering for the unincorporated parts of Bexar County. The No Kill city of Kirby may partner with Bexar County to construct and manage a new shelter. San Antonio recently announced that for the year 2014, ACS had an 84% live release rate. The shelter’s live release rate for cats is 92%, and only adult dogs are still under 90%. ACS has joined the Million Cat Challenge, and Davis said that San Antonio was proud to be a part of the Challenge as a city that had gotten to No Kill status for cats. If the current rate of improvement continues, San Antonio’s overall live release rate could go above 90% in 2015. San Antonio is counted in the blog’s Running Totals as an 80-90% community.

Whidbey Island, which is part of Island County, Washington, is at the northern edge of Puget Sound, 30 miles north of Seattle. The island has over 58,000 residents and its largest city, Oak Harbor, has about 22,000 people. The Whidbey Animals’ Improvement Foundation (WAIF) handles animal sheltering for the island. WAIF contracts with Island County and the city of Oak Harbor to provide shelter services, although the contract payments do not cover the total cost for the services. WAIF, a non-profit, fund-raises for the remainder. WAIF has a holding facility for strays in Oak Harbor. Unclaimed strays are transferred to WAIF’s main shelter in Coupeville, about 10 miles from Oak Harbor. The shelter has weekend hours on both Saturday and Sunday. WAIF also has a cat adoption center in Oak Harbor, and a “cat cottage” in Freeland, Washington. Construction is underway on a new shelter located on a 10-acre site, with completion anticipated this fall. WAIF reports live release rates above 90% since 2005, with the exception of two years when it was at 89%. The live release rate for 2014 was 95%. In 2014, WAIF had intake of 841 animals, down from 903 in 2013. The shelter returned 75% of dogs to their owners in 2014 and 6% of cats, far above national averages in both categories.  Adoptions were 64% of live outcomes. Whidbey Island is counted in the Running Totals as a 90% community.